K. M. Dayal, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the landlord against an order passed under section 28 (5) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) THE argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the repairs could not be done within the amount of rent of two years and further the damage of the property was such that only reconstruction could be effective and repairs were not possible. No amount has been specified within which repairs were to be made. From the application, Annexures 'I' to the writ petition, it appears that the walls in dispute which had fallen down were of earth. It also appears that there were some tiled sheds which have also been damaged. THE earthern wall was alleged to have been damaged by the landlord. Under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 28 of the Act the Prescribed Authority has to order the repairs at a cost not more than two years rent. The cost has to be specified on the basis of estimates prepared. From the judgment of the court below it appears that he has not specified any amount which could be spent in making the repairs. I also do not find any material from which the estimate could be prepared for the necessary repairs. Under the circumstances I feel that the order of the court below suffers from manifest errors. In any case the learned counsel for the tenant respondent no. 2 showed his willingness to get the premises repaired at his own expense and bring them in the same shape in which it stood at the time of letting. The landlord will not be liable to pay any amount towards such repairs. This however does not include the annual repairs or white washing as contemplated by subsection (2) of Section 28. The learned counsel for the petitioner further gave out that he had no objection if the tenant made the required constructions himself and put the premises in the original condition.
(3.) UNDER the circumstances the landlord cannot accuse the tenant of making any constructions or material alterations without his permission within the meaning of section 20 (2) of the Act. The tenant may make the constructions and repair tiles which have been damaged and may also construct the earthern wall as before. He may not be entitled to claim any expenses from the landlord. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The tenant respondent Achey Lal is directed to get the required repairs including constructions made at his own expense. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in same. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;